A report, linked below, claims that the National Park Service has been ordered by Bush to cater to young earth creationists by refusing to discuss the science underlying the Parks’ features, when that science contradicts the faith.

I enjoy writing about science verses religion, and I’m at it again.

Check out this press release: HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology. And you might also notice in the report that the National Park Service has been offering a creationist book for sale.

I don’t know if it’s true that Bush has ordered the submersion of science. But I bet it is, because there are plenty of other examples of this administration rejecting science when the science contradicts religious dogma. If Bush had a free hand, and no pesky constitution to stop him, I wonder how far he would go in pushing fundamentalism and creationism.

Bush seems to be a true believer in the creationist movement, and he truly seems to reject contradictory science. I say this because I have heard credible people say that the great majority of religious persons are not fundamentalists and not creationists. And yet, Bush is willing to alienate those persons by favoring fundamentalism. The politics of the situation would seem to indicate that Bush should be more mainstream rather than cater to the fringe. But cater to the fringe he does! And so I think he’s a true believer.

I’m sorry, but religion isn’t science, and the government shouldn’t be promoting religion over science. There’s a question I heard Jon Stewart ask once, and I’ve mentioned it before here. The question goes something like this: Did you first become religious and then accepted creationism, or did you first find that the scientific evidence favored creationism and then became a creationist because the science persuaded you? I think that question gets to the core of the creationism verses science debate, and I think I know how people would answer the question if they are willing to be honest.

Assuming that the report linked above is correct, I want to mention one final thing. The sub-species of creationism that Bush is catering to is known as the “young earth” creationist movement. I’ve written about the Young Earth creationist movement before. It would be truly fascinating to find a legitimate working scientist who was a young earth creationist because of the evidence, and yet was not otherwise a religious believer.

If I were a young earth creationist, I would personally be overjoyed to have my belief system validated by the government. If I were a religious leader, I could win more followers, and cement loyalty, if i could persuade the government to endorse my preachings. So I understand why the powerful creationist faith-leaders would encourage their friends in the Bush administration to endorse their doctrines. And Bush complies, because he seems to share their views. I disagree with this, but I understand the allure.